Quo Warranto under the Omnibus Election Code The quo warranto which is now in controversy is found in

your Rules of Court - Special Proceedings. The quo warranto under the Omnibus Election Code is an election
case. So, how is it distinguish from an ordinary election cases? 1. Grounds: *Quo Warranto - either ineligibility
and/or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines; or ineligibility or disqualification to hold an office.
*Ordinary E.C. - any ground for that matter, whether it be counting of votes, casting of votes, election offenses,
etc. It covers a wider scope. 2. Who files? *QW; Who makes a QW case? - Any registered voter is qualified to
file a QW case on the ground of ineligibility or disqualification and/or disloyalty to RP. *Ordinary election cases:
Who makes an election protest? > Only the candidate who filed in person a CoC for that particular position. So
limited lang dun sa candidate. e.g. If somebody wants to question the validity of the votes cast for meyer, NOT
anyone can file that can, only the candidate for that particular position who filed a CoC. 3. Procedure/How it is
done? *the same; just read the procedure under the Omnibus Election Code We also have Rules of Procedure
regarding municipal elected officials as far as QW and ordinary election cases are concerned. More or less the
same, the period to file, the names for proclamation, appeal etc., the principles in both are the same.
Protestant and protestee pareho lang, or sometimes sa QW petitioner and respondent. How to distinguish a
pre-proclamation case from an election case? 1. When it comes to pre-proclamation controversy, the dividing
line is proclamation of the winning candidate. > kung na-proclaim na yung winning candidate, wala nang PPC 2.
Jurisdiction. As far as PPC is concerned, the tribunal that has jurisdiction is the COMELEC in the exercise of its
administrative functions or what we call Quasi-judicial functions. On the other hand, when we talk about
election cases, it would be the MTC in cases of Brgy. elected officials. The RTC in cases of municipal elected
officials. the COMELEC as far as city, provincial, and regional elected officials are concerned. The HRET for
Congressmen. The SET for Senators, and the PET for President and Vice President.

Once there is an election case, election protest and quo warranto involving members of the HoR. Since there is
already proclamation, the

court has no longer jurisdiction to any protest against aproclaimed memebr of the HoR. So, it is the hearing of
the house of representative tribunal

that will have jurisdiction.

Cases have gone to the SC regarding this.

ex: partylist.

the partylist contends that the matter should be resolved within the partylist, when we talk about partylist
nominees.

The SC said that it is the HoR that has jurisdiction over who would become or chosen as representative of the
partylist

in the HoR.

HRET- House of representatives elecotoral tribunal

SET- SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL -Pimentel case

MORISEN CASE, the SC stayed the decsion in the case of Pimentel.

PET - Presidential electoral tribunal- Santiago vs. Ramos \read

 Fernando vs. Arroyo Case

LABO VS COMELEC (landmark case)

The SC consistently ruled that when an electic official is disqualified later on, or unseated then apply the

rule of succession. Labo doctrine.

An election case is filed against the mayor and later on, the court decided that the mayor is not

really the one who should be occupying the position or either he is disqualified, then it is the Vice \mayor who
should become as mayor. Then such principle is refered to

as the Labo doctrine.

It was qualified further by Maquiling Doctrine.

The court has consistently adopted that Labo Doctrine.

kapag may madisqualy it is the vice mayor or the vice governor who would succeed. palaging ganon.

but here comes Maquiling, read April 2013 decision. meron yung isang decison after that but it is about the
MR.

then apply the rule of succession. labo doctrine.

motion for reconsideration

si Labo candidate for ayor ng baguio, and si Lardizabal ang kanayang kalaban.

in the end he SC saaid that Labo is not a Filipino citizen, nor a Chinese or Australian citizen. he has no
citizenship. Lardizabal, the losing candidate wanted to be

declared as the winner. the Sc said that he does not have the mandate of law. imagine Labo getting the highest
no. of votes and

here comes the 2nd placer to be the mayor. that violates the so called plurality of votes which is the ruling in
Labo doctrine.

Lardizabal is not to be elected. nag-elect ulit si Labo then nanalo na naman, so he protested

agin, the SC said "Labo, you are disqualified, becasue you are not eligeble for you are not a citizen of the
Philippines. so Vice-Mayor elect is Domgan.

and he became the mayor. (speculations that he will run for the 4th time but is not allowed)

a dual card holder, dual citizen holder run for mayor in Mindanao. he served as mayor previously and won.
nagprotest yung kalaban nya, si Maquiling,
saying that he is disqualified as a mayor. nag-intervene yung vice mayor, motion for intervention as a proper
party in interest kasi based

sa Labo Doctrine, he will be the successor.

Sc rued that indeed, the candidate was proclaim as the winner who is a holder of dual citizenship

is disqualified. will it be te vice mayor sitting as the mayor?

sabi sa Labo doctrine, it should be the case. following the \labo doctrine, when we talk aboutMaquiling, second
lang sya,

the intervenor is saying that Labo doctrine should be folllowed.

the SC said "malabo!"meow. it was really not an old idea becasue there was an old case decided, and they said
that when we look

at the facts for the candidate, if the candidate, a person who files his certificate of candiacy is already
disqualified

\at the tim of filing of COC, no vote would be attributed to him. in other wors, all vote of A are considered
STRAY VOTES.

if stray votes it is a BIG FAT EGG. THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT, PETITIONER Maquiling got the highest no. of
voteswhether it is 100 or 100,000 compared to zero, he got the

highest no. of votes, and that we follow PLURALITY OF VOTES and not MAJORITY OF VOTES.

what is the difference?

PLURALITY OF VOTES- WE ADHERE TO PLURALITY, YUNG PINAKAMARAMI. the one who got the highest no. of
votes.

MAJORITY OF VOTES- 50 % PLUS ONE

*as i have said it does not matter if it is 100 or 100,000 as to compared to zero, he got the

highest no. of votes. thus the SC said, indeed Maquiling is the one to occupy the position of mayor.

they did ot follow the Labo doctrine.

the reason is becasue it is "malabo" hahaha

*it the candidate or a person is disqualified from the time he files his COC, then the

votes cast in his favor should be considered as STRAY VOTES. (maquiling docrine, in so far as election

protest are concerne)

BUT IF THE DISQUALIFICATION CAME AFTER FILING OF COC, then it is another matter.

we will not consider the votes as stray, they will stay becasue of some infractions or

offenses he became an ____ then (19:50) he is disqualified, he womn ijn the elecetion but he was disqualified
and therefore apply\

the RULE on SUCCESION.

example:

a candiadte files his COC, here comes now an allegation of vote buying, execessive expenses. he is qualified but
he is disqualified because of the

offense if there is a final decsion that there was excessive expenses or vote buying then apply the rule on
SUCCESION.

HIS VOTES STAY, AND NOT CONSDERED AS STRAY VOTES, he is disqualified beacause of that infraction.

he became unfit to occupy the office or position by result of such infraction.

the maquiling doctrine.

if the case is CITIZENSHIP, RESIDENCY, the candidate is disqualified from the beginning.

*PENERA CASE, premature campaigning.

SC: after filing of Mr, SC granted and defined athe meaning of who is acandidate? becasue a candidate will be
guilty of premature campaigning.

Sc: candidate is pone who files his or her certificate of candidacy, but shall be considered only

as acandidate upon commencement or start of or campaign period.

Penera, prior to filing of certificate of canddacy, she had already announced his intention to run for office

or campaigning to promote his candidacy. after going aorund, they went ot the comelec and filed his certifcate
of candidacy and

agin went downtown, this time actively pronouncing his running of offoce and urging the people to vote for
her.

they said, premature campaigning, they did that prior to or before the filing of his fiing of certifuiate of
candidacy. and the

campaign period did not yet start.

SC: while they havent filed their COC they are not yet candidates, even after filing th